I have seen dog parks utilized in other cities. There dogs were running around, sometimes one or two at a time, sometimes not. The point is that dogs were allowed to run if they felt like it and they were also able to socialize with other dogs without leashes getting linked together.

As for good exercise, simply taking a brisk walk with one's dog -- say a mile or two -- is excellent exercise. This is what I did with my medium sized dog, who lived healthfully to be almost 18 years.

Beaches cannot be and must not be offered as dog playgrounds, especially at certain hours, when they would essentially and unfairly become single-use beaches. Keeping one's dog on a leash at the beach allows dog owners to use the beach, just like everyone else, without jeopardizing wildlife or humans or other dogs.

Maybe you're right, Mr. Lewis. Let's give all those dogs that like to run on the beach one last run and then have them killed right there. That way dogs that require free and unfettered running can at least have a happy ending. The county could charge owners a fee for this service too - to make make up for the lost revenue on dog license renewal. Everyone's happy - except maybe the dog owners, but what were they thinking - having those dirty, bird scaring, frolicking companions anyway? That should be up to people to do..especially surfers and swimmers who get right out there in the water with them.

We have decided, as a society, that some activities are inappropriate, and we pass laws to regulate those activities. We have not decided that we should not keep domesticated animals such as dogs, cats, cattle and horses. We have decided, however, that these animals are not to be allowed to roam free throughout our communities, and thus have passed laws to regulate how we conduct ourselves with our pets, for the greater good.

No one has proposed here that humans should not have pets, nor that existing pets should be killed. Each and every citizen is free to decide whether or not to keep pets under existing restrictions.

Those of us who decide not to keep pets have the right to not have other people's pets inflicted on us without our permission and in violation of existing laws. We ALL have freedom of choice.

We seem to be well on a path, through comments on this article and through the Live Oak Neighbors discussion list, toward a means of providing County off-leash dog facilities that do not intrude on those who do not wish to interact with pets, nor with wildlife whose habitat is negatively affected by dogs running loose.

I believe our muni code is correct to not allow dogs to run AT LARGE. However, that is different from allowing dogs to be off-leash in certain areas while under voice control with their owners nearby. There are MANY other "societies" that have successful off-leash areas in parks and on beaches. San Francisco, Carmel, and all the other towns that allow dogs to run free on their beaches couldn't possibly break federal regulations, so the argument that dogs running free is illegal under federal regualtion just doesn't fly.
It may be illegal to harass shorebirds and marine mammals, but that would be the case whether 4-legged or 2-legged. Dogs don't necessarily "harass" birds any more than joggers, walkers, surfers or kids, as long as dogs are not allowed to chase the birds.
As for the dog poop issue, this is a problem whether ON or OFF leash. I agree that dog owners need to be more responsible about picking up the poop, but everyone I know does do so religiously and offers bags to those we see not doing so. We also regularly pick up trash along the way. All beachgoers -- dog owners, locals and tourists alike -- need to pack the trash. Should we ban everyone from the beach because there are a few that just won't do the right thing?

Below are links to a few nearby communities that have successful off-leash dog policies. Some of these cities have very simple off-leash policies; some rather complicated. Some require special off-leash dog licenses, in which the dog must show proof that he is spayed/nuetered, has rabies vaccine, is under voice control, and is social and well-mannered to other dogs and people. Some have restricted hours or alternating days. But all have found a compromise that works for everyone. Why can't we -- liberal Santa Cruz -- do the same?

Carmel's Muni Code, Animal Regulations
http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html

City of Carmel - Forest & Beach Commission
http://ci.carmel.ca.us/carmel/index.cfm/government/boards-commissions/forest-beach-commission/

Golden Gate National Recreation Area - Dog Management (San Francisco)
http://www.nps.gov/goga/parkmgmt/dog-management.htm

Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District | Garland Ranch Regional Park Rules
http://www.mprpd.org/index.cfm/id/20/Garland-Ranch-Regional-Park-Park-Rules/

Point Isabel Off-leash dog rules (Berkeley)
http://www.ebparks.org/parks/pt_isabel

East Bay Regional Park District Dog Regulations
http://www.ebparks.org/activities/dogs

East Bay parks offer plenty of options for canines on move
http://www.contracostatimes.com/bay-area-news/ci_19979059/safe-place-people-and-their-dogs-roam#.Tz1RZo7-jtc.email

Dogs Allowed to Run Free in San Carlos
ttp://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_19889850

Harassment of "any marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird within or above the Sanctuary" is prohibited by United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Part 92.132

So, I will admit I have some vision problems and the text in that link is a bit smaller than I like (and I am not on my own computer).

Where in Title 15, Part 92.132 does it say wildlife harassment is illegal? I'm not finding harassment. I did see the part that says you cannot take the wildlife.

Careful readers will note that I cited and linked both County and federal regulations relevant to County beaches and leash laws.

The discussion is not about human effects, but dogs running off-leash. Human effects on shorebirds are for another op-ed.

So I guess the existing off-leash, unfenced dog parks in this county are illegal?

On the other hand, nowhere does the laws say we can't bring horses, cows, goats, etc to the beach... and I guess they don't need to be leashed either!

The GGNRA (Golden Gate National Recreation Area) has unfenced areas, including beaches, where the law states dogs can be off-leash and under voice control. That is the 1979 Pet Policy.

http://www.eco-dog.org/sites/default/files/1979_GGNRA_Advisory_Commission_Pet_Policy.pdf

Michael, you imply that our beaches are home to substantial populations of endangered and threatened species. What species, specifically? If that is true, perhaps some beaches should be closed to all human recreational use, as when people go to the beach, the beach becomes a less desirable habitat for endangered shore birds, whether they bring dogs or not. Diminishing habitat for endangered and threatened species may be a violation of state and federal law, and allowing intense public use of such habitat surely diminishes the amount of habitat for such species.

Perhaps the beaches, if there are any, that are not habitat for endangered species should be the only ones open to the public. And on some of those, off-leash dogs would be great!

Steve... Pogonip is lovely, but there is substantial danger to your dog from coyotes there. As much as I love to go off-leash, I do not do it here. Coyotes are smart. They lure a dog using one coyote, while the rest of the pack hides, waiting to attack.

I suggest you take a hike in Byrne Forest... a privately-owned forest that welcomes dogs off-leash. It is in Correlitos, above "Roses of Yesterday and Today." It is a fairly exuberant hike, but has a great view of the whole bay.

http://www.landtrustsantacruz.org/lands/byrne.htm

In answer to two posts by Steve Premo:

I've not implied that "beaches are home to substantial populations of endangered and threatened species." (They're not "our" beaches by the way.) All beaches are home to species that are protected in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Harassment of any wildlife in the MBNMS is not allowed. This is sufficient.

Santa Cruz County is not a National Forest. It is an intensely urbanized area, in which almost all natural habitat is paved over. This makes the little remaining natural habitat infinitely more precious and in need of protection from human domination.

Human beings destroy natural habitat at a prodigious pace. Allowing yet more natural habitat to be overrun by human pets results in even more habitat loss to wildlife.

Humans are not the only species on Earth. We just act like it.

Mr Wilde:

I love dogs and all canids. I love to see canids running wild in the wilderness, where they have thousands of acres to live and hunt and multiply and die on their own terms.

I decided ten years ago to live dog free after a lifetime of sharing my life with dogs. I found it disturbing to keep an animal captive in an urban environment where it cannot express its genotype, running free and unfettered. I consciously choose to not keep pets in this environment.

It's bad enough that we destroy the little remaining natural environment available for wildlife. To then keep animals captive in an unnatural environment where they cannot live as they have evolved is abhorrent to me.

I exercise my personal choice to not keep pets, and to relish the knowledge that animals can still live wild in their natural habitat.

In my experience, this turns out not to be the case. Dogs have frequently returned to a feral state, sometimes in urban environments. Therefore, Canis familiaris can indeed live wild in a natural habitat. In fact, since Canis lupis and Canis familiaris can interbreed, they are, by biological definition, the same species. Therefore, living in a house in an urban setting is not "the natural environment of the modern day canid."

Domestic dogs have not "evolved" to their modern state. Modern dogs were purposefully bred by humans into their modern variety of phenotypes. This is not evolution by natural selection, this is genetic modification by programmed breeding.

I am not calling for dog owners to stop acting abhorrently. Notice the words I used to explain my personal position on pet "ownership."

No, I am not advocating for dogs to return to a feral state in an urban environment.

Steve, please respond to what I say, not what you would like to hear. Your pejorative remarks do nothing to advance the debate.

Anyone can look up endangered species in the MBNMS in an instant. It's not necessary for me to do it for you. I am talking about federally designated threatened, endangered and sensitive species, protected by federal law in the MBNMS, found on local beaches. You know what this means and you have the means to verify it for yourself.

I'm delighted that your dogs and children were exemplary examples of legal behavior in the past. This is not relevant to the actions of those in the present who do not conduct themselves and their animals in a proper manner. Leash laws exist because of the inconsiderate few, not the thinking, considerate majority.

No one is arguing against people bringing their dogs to the beach. This is a red herring. As you know, I am arguing against allowing dogs to run off-leash on local County beaches.

Just so everyone is clear, I have never claimed to be a journalist. I am a freelance writer. Journalists are employed by news outlets and work closely with editors to publish their work. I work independently.

Since two readers have expressed an unwillingness to do simple Internet research, I am happy to provide the following information:

There is no list of threatened and endangered species specific to Corcoran and Moran beaches, because there are no species whose range is restricted to these two locations. Furthermore, federal restrictions in the Sanctuary are not limited to threatened or endangered species. To whit:

From the MBNMS seb site http://www.mcbi.org/what/what_pdfs/Monterey_Bay.pdf:

and:

http://montereybay.noaa.gov/reports/1999/eco/Pages/endangered.html

UNITED STATES CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 15, PART 922, Section 922.132 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities
"Except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, the following activities are prohibited and thus are unlawful for any person to conduct or to cause to be conducted:
Taking (harass, hunt, capture, kill, collect or injure, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) any marine mammal, sea turtle, or bird within or above the Sanctuary,"

Yes, I contribute regularly to The Santa Cruz Patch blogs, as I contribute regularly to many other blogs. I write and publish my own blogs, as I write and publish my work in many different venues including my own self-published books.

I'm happy to provide this information, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion on leash laws.